A person’s level of abstraction influences how they perceive morality, according to new research. When taking the “big picture” into consideration, people are more likely to view harm and fairness as the core of ethics.
The study by Jaime L. Napier and Jamie B. Luguri of Yale University was published in the November 2013 issue of Social Psychological and Personality Science.
“Results from our study demonstrated that when individuals were thinking abstractly, and thus more likely to make judgments based on their core values that are reliably applicable across time and contexts, both liberals and conservatives increased their valuations of individualizing foundations, and decreased their valuations of the binding foundations, as compared to when they were thinking concretely,” the two researchers wrote.
The research was based on two psychological theories: moral foundations theory and construal level theory.
According to moral foundations theory, human morality is based on five main foundations: Harm — caring for and not hurting others, fairness — equality and reciprocity, ingroup — loyalty to one’s group, authority — respect for leadership, and purity — the sanctity of social norms and customs.
Harm and fairness are known as the individualizing foundations, while the latter three are known as the binding foundations.
Construal level theory has found that “psychological distance” can influence how people think about and evaluate situations. When thinking abstractly, people tend to focus on central features that are consistent across various situations. When thinking concretely, people tend to focus on both the central features and secondary features of the situation at hand.
Participants in the study completed an abstract or concrete thinking priming task, then filled out a short version of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire along with a demographic survey.
In line with previous research, more conservative participants were less likely to endorse the individualizing foundations. Conversely, more liberal participants were less likely to endorse the binding foundations.
The abstract vs. concrete thinking tasks had a significant impact on the endorsement of the moral foundations.
Those who completed the abstract thinking task were more likely to endorse the individualizing foundations than the binding foundations. This effect appeared to be unmediated by political ideology.
“Thus, both liberals and conservatives significantly increased on individualizing concerns about harm and fairness and decreased on binding concerns when thinking abstractly as compared to concretely, and to the same extent.”
Since liberals are already prone to endorse the individualizing foundations, following the abstract thinking task “conservatives looked more like liberals,” the researchers wrote.
“Taken together, the results from our study are in line with the notion that concerns about justice and welfare make up the ‘gist’ of moral values, at least when people are taking a ‘big picture’ perspective,” Napier and Luguri explained in their study.
“Harm and fairness concerns may be more enduring components of people’s morality, whereas concerns regarding in-group loyalty, deference to authority, and purity may or may not play a role in moral judgments depending on situational or contextual factors.”
